James,
I disagree regarding this statement:
It has been pointed out to me that we can do entity voting (apparently
mixed voting was done away with, but is still listed in the IEEE SA
web
pages) under the rules defined by the SA.
While the SA has defined rules for entity voting, it isn't clear how to
apply them to have one Working Group with a mix of entity and individual
voting PARs. For example, there are different membership requirements
for a working group developing standards under the entity method and
under the individual method. Does a Working Group with a mix of PARs
have two voting lists - one entity and one individual? If so, which is
used for voting on items that aren't tied to one of the PARs such as
electing a chair or a directed position regarding another group's PAR?
There is also a difference in sponsor operating procedures. For sponsors
developing individual standards, 5.1.1 of the SB-OM says they must have
P & P and can use the model operating procedures but then it goes on to
say: "There are also operating procedures available for Sponsors
developing a standard using the entity method of participation, and
Sponsors shall utilize these procedures as the basis for entity
standardization." So there are different (model) operating procedures
for sponsors depending on whether they are developing under the
individual and entity method.
Therefore, it is not clear that the rules defined by the SA cover
operation of a sponsor or a Working Group developing PARs under both
individual and entity methods at the same time. Because the procedures
for an entity sponsor allow sponsor voting to be by individuals, it
might be possible to merge entity and individual projects into an single
sponsor. Merging them into a single WG presents more of a problem.
Regards,
Pat
-----Original Message-----
From: ***** IEEE 802 Executive Committee List *****
[mailto:STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG] On Behalf Of James Gilb
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 5:52 PM
To: STDS-802-SEC@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG
Subject: Re: [802SEC] Motion to return 802.20 to individual voting
rights
Wow, I am having some trouble typing here.
In the motion passed on July 16, 2007, "shall e as" should have been
"shall be as"
Instead of:
If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity voting
or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting.
I meant to say:
If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity voting
or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting, it can decide
to do that by a vote of the Working Group, subject to approval by the
802 EC and NesCom or RevCom, as appropriate.
I am looking for a second and/or suggestions to help with the wording.
James Gilb
James Gilb wrote:
All
Some corrections (thanks to Bob Grow).
June 2006, SASB took action removing 802.20 officers
December 2007 (not 2008) dissolving SASB oversight committee and
returning all oversight to the EC.
I verified that the UC-EC meet in San Francisco in closed session,
July
16, 2007. The public minutes state that the following motion was
approved:
"Effective immediately, all votes and ballots in the 802.20 working
group shall be conducted on the basis of entity affiliation, with one
vote per entity. Entities and affiliation shall e as determined by
the
802 EC 802.20 OC, based on members' declarations of their primary
affiliation and other information available to the OC."
It has been pointed out to me that we can do entity voting (apparently
mixed voting was done away with, but is still listed in the IEEE SA
web
pages) under the rules defined by the SA. This may require some
clarifications to the 802 EC P&P and OM as well as the 802.20 P&P and
OM.
It was also pointed out that 802.20 did not use entity voting process,
it used one based on voting blocs.
If 802.20 (or any other group) wants to create a PAR with entity
voting
or to modify a current PAR so that it uses entity voting.
The goal of the motion is to return 802.20 to its original state and
to
allow 802.20 members to determine the best course of action,
including,
if they wish, to switch to entity voting.
James Gilb
PS: Thanks for the responses from everyone that helped me to clarify
the
history and status of 802.20.
James Gilb wrote:
All
I am looking for a second for this one. Paul N. will determine the
valid voting pool (all EC or UC-EC).
Rationale:
On 16 July 2007, the UC-EC voted to make voting for 802.20 to be
based
on entity affiliation.
SASB returned oversight of the 802.20 WG to the UC-EC in December
2007.
Dec 2008 SASB minutes -- "Move to (1) disband the SASB Oversight
Committee, and (2) return oversight control to the 802 Executive
Committee with an offer of continuing support for situations where
the
802 EC wishes to seek our help."
The above motion passed after reviewing the EC motion from November
2006
requesting that "the NC-EC be dissolved once the 802.20 standard is
approved by the SASB."
The 802.20 standard has been approved by the SASB.
Motion
-------------
Moved to return the 802.20 working group to individual voting at the
beginning of the July 2008 plenary meeting. Voting rights shall be
determined on historical attendance credits per the 802.20 P&P, and
superior rules.
--------------
Furthermore, the 802.20 rules and the 802 LMSC rules do not
explicitly
deal with entity voting Working Groups (For example, what constitutes
an entity? In 802.20 sponsor ballot, various individuals were
grouped
by the oversight committee into a single entity vote.)
If we want to convert 802.20 to entity or mixed balloting group, we
should take to the time to write the P&P to support this. In the
mean
time, I think it would be best to return 802.20 to where it was.
James Gilb
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
----------
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email
reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.